STEVEN F. GRUEL (CSBN 213148) 655 Montgomery Street, Suite 1700 2 San Francisco, California 94122 Telephone Number (415) 989-1253 3 Fax Number (415) 576-1442
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
1 STEVEN F. GRUEL (CSBN 213148) 655 Montgomery Street, Suite 1700 2 San Francisco, California 94122 Telephone Number (415) 989-1253 3 Fax Number (415) 576-1442 4 MICHAEL H. ARTAN (CSBN 97393) 1 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 2200 5 Los Angeles, California 90017 Telephone Number (213) 688-0370 6 Fax Number (213) 627-9201 7 Counsel for Anthony Pellicano 8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 12 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. CR-05-01046-DSF 13 SUPPLEMENT TO ANTHONY 14 Plaintiff, PELLICANO’S REPLY RE TERRY CHRISTENSEN’S 15 MOTION TO COMPEL vs. DISCOVERY; DECLARATION 16 OF LYNDA LARSEN 17 ANTHONY PELLICANO, et al. Honorable Dale S. Fischer Date: March 19, 2007 18 Defendants. Time: 8:30 a.m. 19 ____________________________/ 20 21 22 / / / 23 24 25 / / / 26 27 28 / / / SUPPLEMENT TO ANTHONY PELLICANO’S REPLY RE TERRY CHRISTENSEN’S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY- 1 1 TO THE CLERK OF COURT, PARTIES, AND COUNSEL: 2 3 Defendant Anthony Pellicano submits the following supplement as a further reply 4 to the Government’s Opposition to Terry Christensen’s Motion to Compel Discovery, 5 presently set for March 19, 2007.1 6 This supplement is based on the points and authorities below, the Declaration of 7 Lynda Larsen, below, the Under Seal Declaration of Lynda Larsen In Support of 8 Supplement to Anthony Pellicano’s Reply Re Terry Christensen’s Motion to Compel2, 9 filed separately, the record of this case and any additional argument and evidence the 10 Court considers. 11 12 Respectfully Submitted, 13 /s/ 14 Dated: March 14, 2007 STEVEN F. GRUEL MICHAEL H. ARTAN 15 Counsel for Anthony Pellicano 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 1 Mr. Pellicano joined in Mr. Christensen’s motion to compel on February 24, 2007 and filed a reply in 25 support of the joinder on February 26, 2007. 26 2 Under separate cover, defendant will seek leave of court to allow the late filing of this Supplement and 27 the Under Seal Declaration of Lynda Larsen In Support of Supplement to Anthony Pellicano’s Reply Re 28 Terry Christensen’s Motion to Compel. SUPPLEMENT TO ANTHONY PELLICANO’S REPLY RE TERRY CHRISTENSEN’S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY- 2 1 SUPPLEMENT TO ANTHONY PELLICANO’S REPLY RE TERRY 2 CHRISTENSEN’S MOTION TO COMPEL 3 4 I. INTRODUCTION 5 Defendant Terry Christensen’s Reply to the Government’s Opposition to Mr. 6 Christensen’s Motion to Compel Discovery includes points and authorities supporting 7 production of FBI reports and other materials pertaining to the CW and the CW’s 8 interaction with attorney Barry Levin. This supplement is intended to bolster the 9 defense’s request for materials pertaining to the CW and other discovery sought.3 10 The CW was clearly involved in attempts to wrongfully sell tapes of his 11 conversations with Alex Proctor to counsel for Julius Nasso—an adversary of Steven 12 Seagal. The tapes he was planning on selling would only have had value if Seagal were 13 implicated in misconduct. The CW therefore had a vested interest in having Seagal’s 14 name implicated in the Busch incident. Because there was public knowledge of Seagal’s 15 past dealings with Pellicano, the CW had a motivation to implicate Pellicano and Seagal 16 and tape-record Proctor using their names in such a context.4 The Nasso connection in 17 this matter therefore becomes material and is discussed below in relation to the CW and 18 in relation to matters pertaining to the alleged threats to writer Ned Zeman. 19 20 3 This supplement is being filed late because its filing was prompted by the receipt of an FBI report 21 which had not been turned over in discovery. The government has responded to inquiry about this 302 22 report by contending that it was not discoverable material. The history related to this 302 is contained in 23 two Exhibits submitted as Exhibits A and B under separate cover entitled Exhibits In Support of 24 Supplement to Anthony Pellicano’s Reply Re Terry Christensen’s Motion to Compel Discovery. 25 Exhibit A is a March 9, 2007 letter from undersigned counsel to counsel for the government; Exhibit B 26 is a March 12, 2007 from government counsel to the government. 27 4 However, Seagal and Pellicano had severed ties long before any of the incidents at hand and they were 28 actually adversaries at the time in question. SUPPLEMENT TO ANTHONY PELLICANO’S REPLY RE TERRY CHRISTENSEN’S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY- 3 1 It appears, from the government’s position as to the recently obtained 302 report, 2 and from the chronology of events described below, that the government may be taking a 3 view of its discovery obligations that is too narrow. Recently revised, the United States 4 Attorney Manual has expanded the obligation of disclosure of information to include 5 “information that…casts a substantial doubt upon the accuracy of any evidence…[that] 6 might have a significant bearing on the admissibility of prosecution evidence.”5 The 7 policy extends to disclosure of information “regardless of whether the information 8 subject to disclosure would itself constitute admissible evidence.”6 9 Apparently, the government has not fully disclosed details about the CW that cast a 10 “substantial doubt” on his credibility, insofar as his relationship with the government and 11 relating to his relationship with Alex Proctor. It follows that the government should fully 12 disclose information pertaining to the CW’s activities for the government. 13 14 II. FACTS RELATING TO THIS SUPPLEMENT 15 The facts relating to this supplement are set forth in detail in the Declaration of 16 Lynda Larsen, below, and the Under Seal Declaration of Lynda Larsen In Support of 17 Supplement to Anthony Pellicano’s Reply Re Terry Christensen’s Motion to Compel,7 18 filed separately. 19 To help set the context of Mr. Pellicano’s contentions, the defense additionally 20 offers the following background information8: 21 22 5 USAM 9-5.001.C.2. 23 6 USAM 9-5.001.C.3. 24 7 Under separate cover, defendant will seek leave of court to allow the late filing of this Supplement and 25 the Under Seal Declaration of Lynda Larsen In Support of Supplement to Anthony Pellicano’s Reply Re 26 Terry Christensen’s Motion to Compel. 27 8 As the Court has been made aware from prior defense pleadings, the various searches of Mr. 28 Pellicano’s premises will be challenged pursuant to Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978). Under SUPPLEMENT TO ANTHONY PELLICANO’S REPLY RE TERRY CHRISTENSEN’S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY- 4 1 The search warrant affidavit in support of the first search, executed by FBI Agent 2 Stan Ornellas (November 19, 2002 “Amended” Search Warrant9), set forth two general 3 narratives: 4 • The first narrative arises from an exposition of various communications 5 between the CW and an unlicensed private investigator named Alex Proctor, 6 some of which were taped. Proctor is said to have claimed that actor Steven 7 Seagal had hired private investigator Anthony Pellicano to threaten a reporter 8 who was preparing an article about Segal. Proctor also said that he was hired 9 to set the reporter’s car on fire but instead placed a fish and rose on the car, 10 with a cardboard sign on the windshield with the word “stop” and put a bullet 11 hole in the windshield. This narrative section included Agent Ornellas’s 12 account of a search of Proctor’s home and telephone records of Proctor’s cell 13 phone. 14 • The next narrative section in the November 19th Affidavit relates to allegations 15 of threats made to writer Ned Zeman, who was writing about alleged Seagal 16 associations with organized crime. Zeman reported two incidents that were 17 presented in the affidavit in a manner suggesting that Zeman was being 18 threatened in connection with his work on the Seagal article. In the first 19 incident, Zeman found a decapitated toy soldier at his front door on August 26, 20 2002. In the second incident, Zeman said he was driving north on Laurel 21 Canyon Boulevard and noticed a car behind him with flashing headlights. In 22 turn, Zeman slowed down and pulled to one side. The other vehicle pulled 23 24 Franks, the Court determines whether there was probable cause to search by examining the validity of a 25 search warrant affidavit after excising deliberate or reckless misrepresentation and inserting material 26 omissions known to the affiant at the time the affidavit was submitted to the magistrate. 27 9 Agent Ornellas’s affidavit in support of that search warrant will be referred to as the “November 19th 28 Affidavit.” SUPPLEMENT TO ANTHONY PELLICANO’S REPLY RE TERRY CHRISTENSEN’S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY- 5 1 alongside. The passenger window of the other vehicle went down and the 2 driver flashed a flashlight at Zeman, and a passenger pointed a firearm at 3 Zeman. Zeman ducked, heard a trigger click, and heard the driver say “bang” 4 or “bam” and the passenger say “stop” or “stop it” before the car sped away. 5 “Bill McMullin”, a New York private investigator, reportedly told Ornellas that 6 he had a client that claimed that the person who pointed the weapon at Zeman 7 was “John Rottger,” a former Navy SEAL, who was a good friend of Seagal 8 and had appeared in a few of Seagal’s movies. Later, Ornellas showed Zeman 9 a photo-display of six men, including a DMV photo of “John Rottger, Jr.” 10 Zeman picked out John Rottger, Jr.